Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (38010)	8/15/2002 6:07:44 PM
From: Brian Sullivan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq has defeated us in the sympathy contest. Unfortuanely it is not possible for the United States to ever win in a sympathy contest. It kind of kind Microsoft trying to win in a sympathy contest it just doesn't happen. Once a country becomes much more powerful than other countries it will never win any sympathy contests.

To: Bilow who wrote (38010)	8/15/2002 6:33:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

What Churchill said was "magnanimity in victory". We had our victory (in Kuwait), and if we'd been magnanimous the sympathies would be with us. Like I've said before, the true power of the United States is in peace. There was little "victory" that came out of Desert Storm. And Saddam should consider the fact that the US failed to support the Marsh Arab uprising directly after the war pretty magnanimous. In fact, the only reason he is still in power is because the situation was not suitable for creating something that resembles a democracy in the region, and we didn't want to p*ss off our coalition partners. Hawk

To: Bilow who wrote (38010)	8/15/2002 6:36:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

(a) You can bribe the other country, but that doesn't go far enough to make them do something that would destabilize themselves. (b) You can use your power to convince them that being your ally is a good idea, but as I've noted on this thread, US power in terms of conquering enemy territory and changing the minds of the locals is nearly zero. (c) You can get them to sign on as allies because what you want is what they want, but since the basic problem is destabilization, this is not possible in this case. (d) But if you can get them to be sympathetic towards you, you're in like flint. How about (e) you convince your allies that you are going in anyway and you don't need their help, but they are free to choose sides with you, the winner, or with the other guy, the loser? Smart governments go with a winner. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq has defeated us in the sympathy contest... We had our victory (in Kuwait), and if we'd been magnanimous the sympathies would be with us To be magnanimous in victory, first you must have a victory. We didn't have one in 1991 because Saddam never fell as Our Friends the Saudis assured us he would. Besides, the world's sole superpower is never going to win a sympathy contest anywhere. That being said, we can lessen Iraq's sympathy victories by defeating them, revealing what a horrendous tyrant Saddam was (we won't even need to make anything up, there), and then being magnanimous in victory. The correct Iraq strategy would have been ... to announce that the US was unilaterally ending its p---ing match with Iraq. This is not an admission of defeat Of course it is, don't be ridiculous. Arab politics can turn even full-scale defeats into political victories. What you propose would have provided Saddam with an absolute triumph, survivial and victory agains the Great Satan. If you don't believe Saddam would have proclaimed himself a second Saladin on the basis of such a triumph throughout the Arab world, you haven't been following Arab politics.

To: Bilow who wrote (38010)	8/15/2002 6:59:15 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The basic problem is one of obtaining assistance and support from allies. There are basically three ways of obtaining support. (a) You can bribe the other country, but that doesn't go far enough to make them do something that would destabilize themselves. (b) You can use your power to convince them that being your ally is a good idea, but as I've noted on this thread, US power in terms of conquering enemy territory and changing the minds of the locals is nearly zero. (c) You can get them to sign on as allies because what you want is what they want, but since the basic problem is destabilization, this is not possible in this case. (d) But if you can get them to be sympathetic towards you, you're in like flint. And if your cause is the one that attracts sympathy, you've also solved the destabilization problem, because their populations will be in support of action too. Or you can tell them that we're going in anyway with the kind of overwhelming power seen in Afghanistan and the Gulf War, and suggest to them that they'd be crazy to support a loser or not support the clear-cut winner. A variant of "grab them by the b---s and their hearts and minds will follow". Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq has defeated us in the sympathy contest. The sympathy war is just now being fought. When enough evidence of chemical weapon use on the Kurds is repeated ad nauseum, and the evidence of Saddam's other atrocities becomes well-known, whatever advantage he may have will melt away. Sympathy is not a static thing.

To: Bilow who wrote (38010)	8/16/2002 1:37:35 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Carl - good arguments. Problem is, that I have been persuaded by other arguments. I don't see US/Iraq as traditional geopolitics. I don't really give a rat's patootie about Saddam and his ego and his pathology. What I care about is the weapons. And the Islamist radicals who would kill us with them if they could. Regardless of what happened in the past. I care about the future. My future. I have no idea where you live. Let me tell you where I live. My husband works less than half a mile from the Pentagon, directly across the Potomac river from Washington. We live far enough away that the rest of us aren't at risk for a chemical bomb, if it is on target. We are at risk for nuclear and biological. Husband is at risk for everything when he is at work. This is not abstract to me. Someone wants to kill, not "Americans," but me and my family. I will be infinitely grateful if Bush nips this in the bud.